Putting To Sleep The Ghost Of Nujoma

WHEN former President Sam Nujoma retired from active politics I rejoiced for one reason: the media were now finally free from bullying at State House media briefings.

Nujoma would call the media to brief them about some very pertinent issue and once he had read his statement, would just stand up and walk out. Those were the times when he was not in the mood to entertain questions – and they were many.
When he was in a fighting mood, journalists could see it from his body language and if you raised your hand for a chance to ask a question, you could expect anything. I remember very well the day he called a media briefing to respond to an article I wrote about retirement packages for ministers and how, out of the blue, when I stood up to ask him a question, he jumped the gun by first wanting to know: “Maletsky? Are you Namibian?”
Journalists can tell many tales about how Nujoma was a master at intimidating and bullying. But some of us later grew accustomed to it. In fact, a media briefing without Nujoma wagging his finger at journalists or some imperialist wasn’t exciting.
But that was Nujoma and, as I’ve said, such bullying became a thing of the past when he left State House.
However, the trend seems to be rearing its ugly head again. This time among some political and economic hopefuls who try to intimidate and humiliate the scribes.
I am tempted to single out unionist Petrus Nevonga of the Namibia Public Workers Union.
Nevonga calls a media briefing and refuses to answer questions. How arrogant is that?
He is not the only one though. This trend is growing among some hopefuls who think media-bashing is a key to their political success, especially in Swapo.
They call the media ‘agents of imperialists’ and running dogs of the rich and powerful in the West yet no one can prove such allegations.
In fact, and if I may say it, some of them are the johnny-come-latelies in politics who hardly know the history of those they are accusing. That really is a shame.
I have no problem when readers or members of the public take the media on over pertinent issues or questionable conduct, but name-calling just for the sake of it and chasing media from briefings they called is hitting below the belt.
Whether they like it or not, the media will continue to be the watchdogs and will continue to expose, inform, educate and entertain.
They have done that for many years and, as my former editor Gwen Lister would remind me from time to time, not even the ruthless Casspirs could stop some of them prior to Namibia’s independence.
Those who try to belittle the media should know that their freedom today is partly thanks to the media (especially those like The Namibian) who exposed the atrocities in the past and, for instance, kept Swapo leaders informed about what was going on in the country
Why would the same organisations who endured so much hardship now be trying to destabilise the country or be out to destroy the Government or some individuals. To whose or what benefit?
If something is wrong, it is best for those involved to admit and correct it. After which they should move on and not keep bullying the media or blaming reporters for their own wrongs.
There are many problems and challenges we face as a nation and should tackle jointly instead of name-calling and fighting among ourselves. One of these, of course, is the high rate of corruption, and if the media have exposed someone’s involvement, they should simply own up to it instead of attacking the messenger.
Love or loathe the media, there is no ignoring them. Not even political gangsterism will achieve that.

Messing With The Press

THERE is a disturbing new trend in town. Journalists, already registered and accredited by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, are forced to get additional licensing for access to almost every event.

It’s one communication that Namibian journalists don’t want to get of late: a notice for accreditation. But that’s happening increasingly - almost on a fortnightly basis.
What those who do it don’t know is that it is illegal to demand accreditation to conferences. There is no law permitting the authorities to demand that journalists have those unnecessary cards which pile up on their desks every week.
Not only are the cards unnecessary because the journalists are already accredited with the ICT ministry, but also because it is such a hassle to get them.
Government argues that the registration and accreditation of journalists is undertaken to ‘empower’ them. It means they can access certain places such as State House with reasonable ease.
However, it is of no help when they have to re-do the process with the visit of every Head of State, Prime Minister, Minister or other foreign dignitary as well as almost every other local conference where they receive ham-handed treatment by organisers or those employed to facilitate the process.
Shouldn’t we embrace media coverage? If so, don’t curb it by making it difficult for journalists to have access to information.
In any case, the next morning, all those who made it such a mission for journalists to cover their events, still buy newspapers on their way to the offices to read about themselves or sit patiently in front of television each evening hoping to see coverage of these functions. They seek fame like bees seek honey but will not grant those who will afford them such a chance easy access to information.
I tend to think that such people have political agendas that appear to be media headline driven while they are hyper security-conscious. For what reasons, I don’t know, because the closest a journalist has got to attacking a leader in the recent past was by throwing a shoe at George W Bush!
In most cases the accreditation process is so disorganised that the event starts or is over before the accreditation is finalised.
This because of faulty machinery, bad planning and unnecessarily tight security contributing to reporters struggling to secure their accreditation for admittance to such venues.
Personally, I have witnessed instances where several accreditation forms were submitted by people who were not even journalists! We call them spies or spooks.
I have no grudges if journalists are asked to get accreditation for a visiting Head of State or other Very Important Person (VIP) as our Government, like others the world over, is probably worried about terrorists or foreign intelligence operatives infiltrating such venues.
But there have been cases where even intelligence personnel circumvent security checks by supplying details of journalists or pretended to be working for certain institutions such as The Namibian and got away with the cards.
So why not use the already existing media cards? These are checked over time by the Ministry of Information and since we are a small population with an equally small group of scribes, almost everyone knowing the other. In any case, even the intelligence already have the details of most (controversial) journalists!
Judging from the amount of accreditation going on in the country, I have started wondering whether someone is not getting a kickback for giving out the job to a certain company.. Or who is making money from printing the cards which no one even looks at once conferences start?
The media, like any other profession, should abide by the laws of this country but we have the right to defend our turf when something illegal is imposed upon us and licensing is one of them.
As it is now, the accreditation process is just time-consuming, negatively affects production and deadlines and is just an outright waste of public funds.
Let's do away with it.

No Need To Save The Press

SANDWICHED between Workers' Day on Sunday and May 4 (Cassinga Day) is May 3. It is the day media workers and all associated with freedom of expression pause to reflect on their freedom. I do the same.

This year will mark 20 years since the adoption of the Windhoek Declaration on press freedom. It was in 1991 when Windhoek played host to a key conference on media freedom which did not only resonate in Namibia and Africa but around the world with similar historic documents on promoting independent and pluralistic media. It was later adopted by the Africa Union heads of State and governments.
The Windhoek Declaration is a statement of press freedom principles put together by African journalists and calls for free, independent and pluralistic media throughout the world. It also emphasised a free press is essential to democracy and a fundamental human right.
Some 20 years later Namibia has “recovered its former pre-eminent position” to top the southern African region on press freedom as indicated by last year's Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index rankings.
However, media freedom on the continent remains a far cry from the picture the declaration hoped for as many countries continue with their repressive activities against scribes at independent institutions while governments also continue to own some media houses.
This year’s theme is ‘21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers’ which signifies the new challenge facing the media with internet and the arrival of the digital revolution.
Online social networks have mushroomed over the past few years reshaping the media landscape and opening up information channels to many people.
With the recent Egyptian revolution, for instance, Twitter and Facebook helped the people communicate with the outside world. The two were also used during the earthquake in Japan to help communicate with the victims and their families.
Recently I also read about American colleges and universities who check prospective students’ Facebook and Twitter profiles before making an admission decision!
While the social networks have helped advance many causes in the process, some governments see it as a threat to their “stable democracies” and have attempted or continue to censor information.
Others have taken upon themselves to ‘save the press’ by setting up regulatory institutions and other forms of watchdogs. In public their role is to ‘help’ the media to maintain ethics but clandestinely some institutions, which we know, are mainly involved in monitoring media sources in a bid to curtail information.
Before Namibia’s Independence, the role of the fourth estate, for instance The Namibian newspaper, was particularly important for the ruling Swapo as it exposed the atrocities of the apartheid regime and helped inform those inside the country about what was happening outside.
The paper was always commended for standing for truth and defending the rights of the people.
The Namibian's operations depended a lot on investigative journalism of a kind that is now threatened by unwarranted telephone taps and economic sanctions by those who know very well what the paper stands for.
Those in power today talk about 'classified' information when priorly they depended on such information from media houses such as The Namibian before Independence.
They don't seem to get it that serious journalists do indeed deal with classified information and, after all, their job is to find out what government officials do not want revealed!
With this year's theme being '21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers', it is therefore an appropriate time to remind ourselves that the struggle for Namibia's Independence was not fought to turn the country into another police state and that truth can never be characterised as defamation.
Of course, it is a different story if the journalist gets it wrong or behaves in an unethical manner.
But there is definitely no need for governments to save the press.